Partha wrote:Packet switching means little, Dd. After all, a phone call goes through several routers on it's way across the country, and a letter hits several postal stops while it's in transit, too. The key is can the government look inside a communication that has a reasonable expectation of privacy without a warrant?
It means a lot - a phone call and letter is *expected* to be a point-to-point communication. The internet can't really claim that. The expectation of privacy is different.
The argument can be rendered moot, or at least irrelevant, by entities using encryption. All encryption protocols can be broken, but even off the shelf free software developed for this purpose can delay the NSA, or any other entity, for YEARS, as most of the cracking involves brute force computations.
Therefore, any shithead terrorist with just a sniff of computer literacy, is already using encryption that essentially thwarts the NSA's ability to crack. This is a knee-jerk reaction that will allow the government to look wherever they want. Its a goddam fishing expedition, and while the Feds sniff out the occasional child-porn perp or mobster, the REAL terrorists will pass by undetected.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Partha wrote:Packet switching means little, Dd. After all, a phone call goes through several routers on it's way across the country, and a letter hits several postal stops while it's in transit, too. The key is can the government look inside a communication that has a reasonable expectation of privacy without a warrant?
It means a lot - a phone call and letter is *expected* to be a point-to-point communication. The internet can't really claim that. The expectation of privacy is different.
Dd
Nonsense. As well say that if a mailed letter goes to too many stops during transit, that it becomes unreasonable to expect privacy.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
Partha wrote:Nonsense. As well say that if a mailed letter goes to too many stops during transit, that it becomes unreasonable to expect privacy.
First of all, a letter is enclosed in an envelope that requires a little more than trivial inspection to look inside.
Secondly, the analogy is deliberately sending a letter via about 20 different organizations that include various government agencies and expecting none of them to pay attention where it's going.
The expectation of privacy on an internet packet is very different to a letter. If you want privacy, there's tools that provide it.
First of all, a letter is enclosed in an envelope that requires a little more than trivial inspection to look inside.
Secondly, the analogy is deliberately sending a letter via about 20 different organizations that include various government agencies and expecting none of them to pay attention where it's going.
Where it's going != it's contents. I can trivially look at a letter and trivially determine where it's going, too.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
First of all, a letter is enclosed in an envelope that requires a little more than trivial inspection to look inside.
Secondly, the analogy is deliberately sending a letter via about 20 different organizations that include various government agencies and expecting none of them to pay attention where it's going.
Where it's going != it's contents. I can trivially look at a letter and trivially determine where it's going, too.
Hence the first line of my statement. What you're describing is the expectation that you send a *postcard*, not a letter and not have anyone else read it.
You're claiming, of course, what the courts have refused to agree with you on - that emails aren't protected.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
I'm with Partha on this one. Emails enjoy (rightly or wrongly) an expectation of privacy. All the technical mumbo-jumbo is irrelevant to the average joe. They don't understand packets, routing, switching, diversion, etc. To them (most of us), our expectation is that an email is a direct and discreet communication with another entity, regardless of how it gets there. Therefore, we have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Fucking chaps my hide that I agree with Partha though. But I look at Partha like this.. even a broken clock is right twice per day.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Actually the courts have come down on two different sides depending on who's mail system you are using. Your expectation of privacy from your personal ISP's email service is far different that your expectation of privcy from say the email system your employer provides.
Kulaf wrote:Actually the courts have come down on two different sides depending on who's mail system you are using. Your expectation of privacy from your personal ISP's email service is far different that your expectation of privcy from say the email system your employer provides.
It is not a hard fast rule.
Hmmmm.. where to start. Businesses as an entity do not have an expectation of privacy, as a constitutional right. Only citizens (a human being, born in the US) have that expectation of privacy as defined by the 14th Amendment. Corporations have property rights, but not privacy rights. That is why Kulaf's post is important. Communications transmitted through a company email system are (legally) treated differently than communications sent through your personal email.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Kulaf wrote:Actually the courts have come down on two different sides depending on who's mail system you are using. Your expectation of privacy from your personal ISP's email service is far different that your expectation of privcy from say the email system your employer provides.
It is not a hard fast rule.
Hmmmm.. where to start. Businesses as an entity do not have an expectation of privacy, as a constitutional right. Only citizens (a human being, born in the US) have that expectation of privacy as defined by the 14th Amendment. Corporations have property rights, but not privacy rights. That is why Kulaf's post is important. Communications transmitted through a company email system are (legally) treated differently than communications sent through your personal email.
Define the difference. It's not a hard and fast line you're talking about there, and remember you can (and do) send personal emails via any number of company systems, some of which may be your employer.
Essentially, the difference is this Dd. Emails sent from a work computer are the property of the business. There isn't an expectation of privacy of a worker that his or her emails, which are property owned by the corporation, are private.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Specifically I am not speaking of the governments right to intrude on your email at your employer.....but rather that courts have ruled that employers may inspect the contents of their employees email at any time as they provide the system. Just as your employers may listen in on your phone coversations if they so choose and follow any federal and state laws regarding notification of said evesdropping (i.e. your call may be monitored to ensure excellent customer service).
Embar Angylwrath wrote:Essentially, the difference is this Dd. Emails sent from a work computer are the property of the business. There isn't an expectation of privacy of a worker that his or her emails, which are property owned by the corporation, are private.
It's really a murky area which the courts have not well defined. For instance all of the locations you visit on the web are probably tracked by your ISP. They keep those records much like the phone companies keep records of your calls. People within those companies are free to inspect your records as needed and as such your expectation of privacy with regard to service companies is near zero. The same with say your bank or your credit card processors.
If you contrast this with the "usual" comparrison to the post office the difference is night and day. Postal emplyees are forbidden by law to examine the contents of your communications. The only information they have access to is routing information. The only way to duplicate something like this on the net would be for all corporate entities to communicate on the net to encypt all contet other than sender and destination.......which is not requred at all.
This goes as far as satalite interception of calls and is it technically considered "tapping". For example if the NSA monitors a satalite downstream from AT&T and builds their own decoder could they legally listen in on all of those calls as AT&T is using "space" as a transmission media?
